Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

"Think of the children" actually gets people to listen.
Not the groping, not the invasion of someone putting their hands on you (think about those that hate being touched, or fear of germs, etc), or 3d images of your body for all to see.
Nope, its fear of pediophilia and children being touched.
We have come far.

While the risk of "terrorists" is vastly overrated, and the TSA clowns would have fuck-all chance of catching one even if they were silly enough to try a uber-retro precise replay of an earlier attempt, there isn't any particular reason why a child is a worse place to stash some contraband than an adult(other than size, of course.)

The whole enterprise of gaterape as a security measure is flawed; but it isn't more flawed in children than it is in adults.

The whole enterprise of gaterape as a security measure is flawed; but it isn't more flawed in children than it is in adults.

No, but that doesn't matter. It's just that people "know" a child isn't going to have anything on them. It might be irrational but it's a stronger feeling that makes the whole thing more obviously stupid.

That's not only it. An adult can understand the whole scenario and then make a rational choice to be part of it or not. Children make no such choice, but are often, by measures beyond control of the parent, required to be with their parent when they fly. Sometimes people cannot avoid flying and bringing their kids, thus if opposition to the measure, swallowing a bit of their moral and personal belief foundation to overcome the TSA barrier and get to, for example, their father's funeral in time.

You can't say parents have a choice not to fly, and you can't expect everyone to agree with the idea of it.

Considering they use the back of their hands, it wouldn't call it 'groping'. The media likes to incite the locals with such terminology but the pat downs are pretty benign. In this case she simply didn't want to put her child through the scanner. As far as I can tell from TFA, she never even got to the point where they offered to do a pat down instead.

Next time you are out in public, touch a woman in a sensitive spot with the back of your hand and see if she cares whether it was the front or back of your hand.

While I generally feel there needs to be more incidents like this to prove that the public shouldn't tolerate this any longer, I am also quite annoyed that women feel like their bodies are more sacred than men.

Former TSA screener here and I can say that I and many others do NOT enjoy screening people. (I'll never forget the time I had to do a pat-down of a one-legged man and found marijuana... in the area of the missing leg... I tried to let him and the marijuana pass through but another screener saw it... oh well) I can't help but feel as though I could have helped that woman and her child through screening. I feel kinda bad about the whole thing, but I also see it as a necessary step to rid the system of such measures.

And you know, the backscatter imagers should not need to save or even display images of people unless the machine's AI detects something deemed suspicious or inconsistent with normal densities and patterns found. I never got to see or use those things as I was long since out of the TSA before those things arrived on the scene, but as far as luggage screening goes, all items were screened and only opened if the machine says to check it. (There was one exception I witnessed -- the machine said to check some containers which we simply didn't check -- they were human torsos... no head, arms or legs.) I should think that in order to sanitize the backscatter imagine process, they should set the machines to not save any images unless the computer says to check further and after clearing, erase.

Still regardless of what they could do to make things better or easier, it would be better if this all just got reduced in scope and scale. Screening for obvious things would be more or less useless but I think that's just about as far as things need to go for now -- at least until an incident occurs. We have a reality here that people are simply failing to acknowledge. There are people in the world who are furious with the "people of the U.S." because of how the U.S. leadership behaves in the world. THAT is what needs to change. Anyone who claims it is "radical islam" and the differences in religion that causes all this are out of their heads. There are other world nations who haven't the slightest problems like these and those nations are "neutral" and still have healthy economies.

What we have are aggressive [read greedy] business interests in the U.S. who get the U.S. government to act on their behalf in ways that would be completely unacceptable if those things were to happen in the U.S. by other governments. In short, my U.S. government violates one of the most fundamental Christian ethics -- do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'm not Christian, but my government leaders all claim to be and I would expect them to live up to those standards or stop calling themselves Christian.

Now we have a situation where the entire population of the U.S. has to be fearful because greedy business interests have interfered in the affairs of foreign sovereign nations. That may seem like a reasonable trade-off to those greedy business interests, but can the pedestrian population of the U.S. agree with this? I doubt it. This is the reality no one wants to talk about. "The Cause." Like most all maladies, it's often best to address the cause of the problem rather than merely addressing the symptoms.

we should do away with the backscatter machines entirely. I read an article that interviewed a guy that is involved in the making of those machines, and he said that you can walk through one with a loaded handgun and a pound of C4 without it being detected, if you prepare correctly.

Oh yes. There are those personalities who enjoy humiliating others and having a sense of control over the destinies of others through their official capacity as security screeners. But we know those personalities already -- we have seen them in IT and usually take the form of IT guys who lock down PCs so hard that people can't even change their desktop background or use a screensaver other than "blank screen." These same people who despite knowledge and evidence to the contrary, believe people who have their computers infected do so because they are addicted to pornography or some such thing. They imagine the worst of every person they meet and attempt to control and punish people accordingly.

There are sociopaths at every social level and in every occupation. Greed and lust for power isn't a condition that happens when people get rich or powerful, it is quite the opposite as these are most often greedy people with a lust for power and also ability, talent and circumstances which enable them to achieve their desires.

In the first days of the TSA (I was among the first batch) there were people who thought they were "federal agents" and wanted to carry night sticks. More than one of these jackasses liked to holster the handheld metal detectors as if they were weapons of some kind... sword or firearm. And it goes without saying that they couldn't go more than 10 minutes without commenting that passengers are incredibly stupid and obnoxious people and shouldn't be allowed to fly.

Oh yes, there were some of those... and there were plenty of other colorful types as well. I rather wish I had sketched my observations to write a book at the time. But there were many distinctive personality types and motivations. But for the most part, they don't like what they have to do, but they do so to the best of their ability while at the same time try their best not to offend the people they are screening. There were lots of us with at least that much in common.

So if you first called a woman at home and told her you were going to grope her, then waited for her to head out to the bus stop and molested her there (using the back of your hands), that would be okay? It's just a matter of advanced notice and using the back your hand?

Terrible analogy. You take positive steps that are considered consent to be searched possibly by pat down. Telling someone you will grope her isn't a positive action by the person to be groped. Buying a ticket with the knowledge that you will be searched. Arriving at the airport. Entering a restricted (sterile, secure whatever they call it) area. Getting in line for a search. All positive steps that signify a consent to be searched. Up until you enter the secure area you can not be searched without probable cause. Once you enter you have consented and cannot unilaterally revoke.

And as far as it being "groping" or "sexual molestation" those are criminal charges with specific elements to be met. TSA pat downs, if done right, don't meet those elements or it would be illegal. Go ahead, sue one of 'em. It will be thrown out of court on summary judgment. Not because it's a government search, but because a properly done pat down isn't molestation. Same goes for police pat downs.

It seems your argument boils down to "it's legal so it's ok". I would like to point out that at one point slavery was legal. It was deemed ok, at least up until the point that the populace decided it was better to change that. It got so bad it essentially started a civil war.

TSA pat downs, if done right, don't meet those elements or it would be illegal.

"Illegal" is whatever the government says is illegal. Is this woman the only one left in the US with balls? Jesus Christ, what's wrong with you people? Are there no more real Americans left? Do you not care about freedom and liberty?

Shit, I'm getting old. When I was young we'd have rioted over this insane nonsense. Remember Kent State? No, of course you don't. You would have rooted for the National Guard murderers.

What a complete non-sequitur. It doesn't matter if there are other options for travel... the TSA is a GOVERNMENT agency. Their actions are subject to review, criticism and most importantly CHANGE when they do not represent the people they serve.

Who the fuck cares about the semantics? What we have here is a bureaucracy that has decided it is smarter than the people it serves, which is a situation that should always be challenged by those who desire freedom.

Traveling by a car is a part of vacation. You see places, people, dine in towns that you never saw. Basically you see the world.

But traveling by an airplane is a boring chore. Not only you have to worry about getting to the airport and from it. You have to go through the indignity of an illegal search by TSA; then you are herded into the airplane and lifted so high that you can't see anything down below - even if you sit by the window. But you can see (and hear) perfectly well the noisy children all around you, mountains of luggage everywhere, your legs that you have to fold in most unnatural way, etc. etc. As a free bonus you get a bit of ionizing radiation, and you get to share your sneezes with everybody else on the airplane. There is no restaurant you can spot and drive the airplane to; there is no food even.

I travel by car from time to time, and 400-500 miles per day is not a concern at all, easily doable between 9am and 5pm with a good lunch somewhere, in a spacious restaurant (even McD is spacious, compared to airplanes) and on terra firma. If I feel tired by the end of the day I can stop at any hotel I like. I can have as much luggage as I want but I don't need to carry any of it, and nobody is going to rummage through my bags. Traveling in your own castle is very comfortable.

Profiling - that's it! How about we LOOK AT PEOPLE, get some kind of idea who and what we THINK they might be, and go from there?

The problem is that they already do profiling. There's no other way to explain why I have been "randomly" singled out for this treatment nearly EVERY SINGLE TIME I have gone through Mineta San Jose Airport (including this very morning). It has gone so far beyond what would be considered acceptable by any reasonable person that I am currently seeking legal representation.

Even before today, I was already so fed up that I'm doing the vast majority of my travel this year by Amtrak. Unfortunately, due to scheduling constraints, this one trip required me to travel by plane for one leg. I'm taking Amtrak for the return trip. Henceforth, I will not be traveling by commercial airlines anymore within the continental United States until the TSA is disbanded. If I miss family funerals, so be it. If I miss other special events, that's life. I refuse to be degraded and humiliated as a precondition for travel.

To the Tea Party, want to cut $43.6 billion in government pork? Dissolve the TSA, fire everyone, and cancel all outstanding contracts to Rapiscan and L-3 Communications. Also, add a permanent ban on all future government contracts across the board for these two companies. They're dirty crooks who manipulate politicians into putting our people at risk and forcing the public to give up its fundamental legal right to free travel within our nation's borders, and that is something that simply cannot be tolerated.

Finally, may Satan reserve a special place in Hell for everyone involved in trying to force any parent to choose whether his or her child should be felt up by a stranger or irradiated. If that is what safety demands, then fuck safety. If the only way to be safe is to give up our most basic moral values, our most basic freedoms, and everything else that makes the United States better than some shithole dictatorship, then what are we bothering to fight terrorism for? If that is truly the price of freedom, then the United States that we know and love died and was buried on September 11, 2001, and we're just waiting for the fat lady to arrive to sing Ave Maria and give the eulogy.

Having your throat cut by a terrorist is also potentially required if you board a plane. Can't really object, because you can always take a bus, train, car, or whatever else. Conclusion: if you decide to fly sit quietly to facilitate throat-cutting.

You think that scares me into agreeing with you? How cheap. Hey when both the facts and the will of the people are overwhelmingly against you, just go for the emotional angle and see if you can play on their fears. That's not completely transparent at all. The fact is, you're more likely to get struck by lightning than fall victim to any sort of terrorist attack.

It's perfectly rational to be much more wary of the US government than any terrorist. Meanwhile, the US government is giving the terrorists exactly the panic-based security-theater overreaction they wanted. A terrorist's wet dream is to perform one attack or a small number of attacks and have those forever change the way the attacked nation is run. It lets them know that conducting such attacks means they get their way and have the impact they desired to have.

If you really want to secure airports, take a hard look at how the Israelis do it. They have many more problems with terrorism than the US has ever had. Hint: their methods don't involve groping and they don't involve using radiation to see beneath clothing. Instead, they use this crazy thing called good old-fashioned police work. Like so many other things we simply refuse to do, it works every time it's tried. The Israelis are not looking for inanimate objects like guns, knives, and explosives. The Israelis are looking for terrorists, you know, the people who have to wield the weapons before those weapons can do harm. At this they have been most successful by any law-enforcement or security standard.

It's quite difficult to argue with success. The surest sign of someone who makes a factual matter into a religious issue and an article of faith is that they will try to do it anyway.

I shouldn't answer an AC, but what the fuck I'm bored. the core of the matter is this ain't security, its classic security theater. You know this, i know this, hell everyone knows this.

I could write a long detailed explanation but I think it would be better coming from an expert, so I defer the floor to Mr Bruce Schneier [schneier.com] who points out on the last test,and I quote "screeners missed 70 percent of knives, 30 percent of guns and 60 percent of (fake) bombs. "

So it doesn't work, you are potentially poisoning people with the scanners, and you're groping little kids. Did I miss anything? Oh yeah it lets the companies that makes the scanners and trains the TSA goons to make some nice grift off the USA gov, so it is all right then.

One thing is that you shouldn't worry about the scanners. The airplane you are about to board is going to expose you to hundreds of times more radiation during the flight that the backscatter scanners. That's not to say whether or not they're healthy for a TSA agent to operate next to for 8 hours a day for five years, but for the traveler, they are simply not exposed to enough radiation to change their risk of harm in a statistically measurable fashion.

Of course, buying the scanners consumed $370 million dollars worth of OUR MONEY, over a dollar for every American, pissed away on a device that has prevented exactly ZERO terrorists from doing anything the metal detectors weren't already catching. That's ZERO value for our money. You would have gotten more utility and value from your money if you had wiped your ass with a dollar bill and flushed it.

That said, did you notice how the post you responded to used the word "contraband" instead of "weapons"? I don't give a greasy fart whether the guy next to me is carrying 10 pounds of cocaine. It's not my problem. I don't care about contraband. And you better not make me stand in a goddamn hour-long line to search for coke, because IT DOESN'T MATTER TO MY SAFETY. Contraband is a bullshit argument.

I also don't even care if someone boards the damn plane with a knife. I used to carry them on planes every time I flew, and strangely enough they didn't cause a terrorist incident. Knives are only dangerous on a plane if you're trying to shave in turbulence.

If someone wants to use a knife on a plane to threaten someone, he's going to have me and about a dozen other pissed off guys to contend with. I'll take my chances with a knife or even soak up the bullets in his gun before letting the plane my family is on go down in a crash for his fucking crazy cause. And that attitude is not mine alone. Another box cutter fueled 9/11 just isn't going to happen.

The TSA should be cut immediately by 50%, and the backscatter machines donated to some clever third world country engineering school to re-equip them as medical X-ray devices so at least someone can get some use from them.

As for the politicians who supported the USA PATRIOT act? They should never hold another term in any office in this country. They can go run for office in Saudi Arabia for all I care, but they're not American patriots, and don't deserve the flags they pompously wear on their lapels.

The 'enhanced' pat downs are not radically different from a regular pat down except that they will use the palms of their hands on non-genital areas. Your 'privates' are still checked with the back of the hand. There is no 'groping' involved.

Onto the pat-down. Ms TSA asked if we were ok having it done in front of everyone, we said sure, unless you’re going to make us take our clothes off. She looked unamused and said no, there would be no stripping. Then she talked through what she was going to do— like the last agent did during our un-enhanced pat-down a month or so ago. Except she said something that had passed us by in all the hysteria about pat-downs—she would use the front of her hands everywhere except sensitive areas. Ie, boobies and nether regions would only get the back of her hand. No different from the old pat-down.

The hysteria about this is amazing given the supposedly more logical leaning crowd that visits/. I don't care if these searches are not 100%, and every/.'er should know that NO security is perfect, but I feel better that it's done rather than no security at all. Exempting children from this would just make children the ideal transport for contraband.

Oh come on, "but I feel better that it's done rather than no security at all."? What crap, the choice is not between this or no security. What about logical profiling based on various factors about the traveler, what about bomb sniffing dogs on top of the metal detectors?

What difference does it make that they 'only' use the back of the hand on the erogenous areas? Why should we give a flying fart if it's the front or the back?

How about if TSA 'only' sticks one finger up your ass to check for items, as opposed to using two if they thought you had an evil eye? The point is they should be using ZERO. It's a straightforward violation of unreasonable search and seizure and as well as freedom of movement.

I don't think it's fear of pedophilia. As a parent I observed that from early childhood on my children began to develop their own senses of bodily integrity. It's one of the things that keeps the manufacturers of Band-Aids in business--gotta maintain that bodily integrity in the face of cuts, scrapes, and assorted boo-boos by sealing them up with adhesive bandages. The first trip to the beauty or barber shop is often a terrible trauma, and so are the holiday visits where one is plunked against one's will on the lap of some terrifying bearded stranger in a red suit. If you watch compassionate pediatricians, nurses, or even barbers, you'll see them explain to the child what they're about to do, what it will feel like, and why they are doing it.

We spend a lot of time cultivating and encouraging this sense of integrity in our children lest they be hurt or taken advantage of by strangers, but we're just reinforcing the sense of self that is already developing. It's natural for children not to want to be touched, mauled, or manhandled by people they don't know. It's natural for adults, too, only we've learned to repress it in certain instances. Children are working very hard on their independence and self-determination, and they're well aware that they can be overpowered by large adults. The wails of the child undergoing the TSA search go straight through any parent because the parent hears the violated child--not sexually violated but deprived of self-esteem and self-image by an adult who is a stranger.

I don't think TSA agents are pedophiles, though it would certainly be an appealing job for someone who was. I don't perceive the children as being groped. I do see them being swooped down on and overpowered by strangers, no matter how well-meaning. It has to be terrifying.

the right to travel freely in my country: GONE. if it means air travel, its gone. if it means driving and there's a 'mandatory roadblock' where they steal your blood against your wishes (not kidding, forced DUI checkpoints and they DO draw blood if they want to) then your freedom to travel unimpeded is gone.

Actually, most people who board an aircraft that doesn't fly to US destinations aren't being patted on the fanny or squeezed by the buttocks and don't have to take off shoes, belts, open suitcases and have them rummaged, etc.

Still, the people who don't fly to the US are being hassled to some extent because of the common ICAO regulations pushed by the US. So, I'd say it isn't the 6 billions out there that are the problem, but the US government and its sponsors, who are milking the security theater for all it is worth.

Fact: A terrorist could hide stuff up his butt. Drug dealers do it all the time, that's how cell phones get into prisons, etc.

Think about that the next time you're being groped. The guy behind you could have a huge sausage of C4 in his butt and the clown who's currently massaging your packet wouldn't have a hope of finding it.

The "think of the children" argument has managed to get all sorts of ridiculous legislation passed, so it's clearly an effective argument. It's about time we started using it to protect some of our rights.

I'm wondering how we can use that to fight bandwidth caps. Start streaming school lessons in full 4K resolution every day, then go "OH NOES! IF YOU HAVE A BANDWIDTH CAP, THE CHILDREN WILL GROW UP ILLITERATE AND IGNORANT! WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?"

Again the be all, end all of all this searching, will be terrorists with bombs either in their rectum, or surgically implanted.

This has already been done SUCCESSFULLY in Saudi Arabia in 2009., and they used a cell phone trigger. Suicide bomber died, but didn't kill the Saudi Prince. There happened to be audio going, and it catches the cell phone going off inside!! the bombers abdomen - wow....NPR linkhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113509667 [npr.org]

“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”

The TSA scanners aren't comparable in any useful sense to cell phones or sonograms. (Cellphones are non-ionizing radiation and sonograms are pressure waves.) Is it any wonder that these guys don't get the benefit of the doubt?

It is not the system that "greed-head airlines" put in place, it was put in place by Federal Government, namely DHS. If it were individual airlines putting the system together, we would probably have a wider range of options, and you could choose to fly the airline which offers screening on the level that you personally consider acceptable.

When this screening was first introduced (was not it in PATRIOT Act? And I though that more than half of/. HATED it, up until it was re-signed by the mechanical pen of t

This woman should be applauded, her sticking up for the health of her children (those backscatter machine REALLY safe?) and their dignity (because "pat downs" are degrading). She was willing to get herself arrested to stand up for her children. We need more people like her.

Not to nitpick here, but there's usually more than one crewmember in the cockpit. If one of them goes all Allahu-Ackbar, the others at least have a small chance of subduing him. If he's got a weapon, the chances go down. If he's got a bomb, there's no chance at all.

Of course, I agree it's ridiculous to be scanning the pilots... but it's not true that "there's no point". There is a point, but you're running up against diminishing returns. You might save one aircraft over the next 100 years - not really

Pilots expect to go through the machine every day over a 30 year career, and they already have the highest radiation exposure of any job except maybe astronauts. The addition of the backscatter machine increases their exposure by about 0.1% which is small but not totally insignificant. That said they are still well under the federal occupational limit of 5000 mrem per year.

Given the facts my best guess is that the pilot unions are actually more concerned about issues of privacy and humane treatment by TSA

The danger comes from repeated doses. You are allowed a certain number of chest x-rays a year because the effect is cumulative. So while flying once a month may not be enough radiation to cause ill effects, what about flying once a month plus an x-ray scan plus chest x-rays? What about if you have to stand next to the unregulated/untested x-ray machine every single day as a TSA agent?

When I have an x-ray from the doctor or dentist they ALWAYS leave the room, and they ALWAYS provide me with a lead apron.

The devices skip past the purview of the FDA because they're not "medical devices", but that does not mean they're safe.

That's not enough of a loophole - try doing industrial radiography in the USA with unregulated/untested equipment and see what legal trouble that gets you into. Those guys that do radiography of welds and operate their equipment via very long cables still have to wear dosimeters even though they'll theoretically get less exposure than the TSA guys.The loophole here is the old fashioned "might makes right" loophole which has been popular in China for a while but in other places is usually blocked in favour of the rule of law.

In the opinion of a gun crazed right wing sycophant called C6 gunner, a mother protecting her children from abusewho seems to have a better understanding of science then C6gunner must be stupid for standing up for their rights.

Okay, I get it- they screen children, the infirm, and the elderly not because they expect these people to be terrorists, but because it would be possible to use them as mules to carry the payload for someone who themselves would definitely be screened. Many of us understand this. Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers. One RN per security checkpoint, one Doctor to every four or five checkpoints or per terminal or airport, depending on the size of the terminal or airport. But, that would probably be expensive in an era when we're short on doctors and nurses. I suppose that they don't have to be especially good doctors, but since they're inspecting the body, having someone trained in the body probably would be a good idea.

The trouble is, they really, really need to find a better way to screen, and they need to understand that paying low wage workers to do the screening isn't helping. They need employees who actually care and are fairly intelligent people, and they need enough of them to offset the grueling nature of the job. That probably means a four-fold increase in the payroll, with 1/3 going to wage increases and the rest going to doubling the number of workers. They also need to institute their own Internal Affairs, complete with undercover placing (which could easily be safely hidden by the sheer size of the organization through the use of random gate reassignments for employees as well as transfers between airports and cities) to help stamp out the current problems.

When I went through security in London Heathrow, about a week after the Christmas Underwear Bomber attempt, and I accidently set off the metal detector because of a foil-lined wet wipe in my pocket, their security was quick and intelligent. They didn't feel the need to extend their patdown into a bag search, and once they found the wet wipe manually in my shirt pocket they wanded me quickly again, passed me, and gave me back the wet wipe. It took something like a minute for the whole process. Granted, they were smart enough to leave enough space in the airport for security, which is probably triple what we have in the US, but their employees seemed to actually care about what they were doing, didn't joke around in a way that made me uncomfortable, and treated it all as important but routine. I didn't get the "guilty until proven innocent" feeling that I get in our own airports.

I've heard lots of good things about El Al, as everyone on here talks about. I really wish that our policy makers would stop thinking that the technological approach is the way to go and start thinking about the human interaction approach. I'd bet that we could go back to simple metal detectors again if security actually made conversation with passengers instead of treating them like cattle to be mechanically put through the processes.

...Thing is, in the case of children, they need to have actual medical staff like RNs and MDs on hand to handle children and teenagers. One RN per security checkpoint, one Doctor to every four or five checkpoints or per terminal or airport, depending on the size of the terminal or airport.

Er, considering that quite a few parents would agree that any sort of patdown down by a stranger is more of a psychological impact than a physical one, how exactly is your solution going to help at all when the child is still standing in the middle of a damn airport with thousands of people around them, all impatiently waiting for the good "doctor" to get done with their screening?

Sorry, but in the big picture, even a lollipop ain't gonna help. This bullshit needs to stop. When attacking the obscenities against our Rights, it's best to go for the throat, or root cause in this case, which is questioning why in the hell we even need the continued "support" of the TSA.

Trying to figure out a more polite way to fondle my child in order to board an airplane is not the answer.

The question is what is the purpose of the TSA. Is it to increase security, or provide jobs in a way that covers conservatives asses from the voters. It is like the wats in Iraq. Clearly not critical for the security of the country, but it allowed the expansion of the military budget in a time of increasing deficit, which allowed the exact kind of stimulus the economy needed in terms of government spending to keep the economy going. The drawback is using the military and agencies like the TSA creates a

The irony is that any terrorist with half a brain is never going to attempt to get a bomb or weapon onto a plane again. The next big terrorist attack in the US will not be on an airplane. It may be at an airport though but it would be in the lobby or curbside maybe. Bombings in Mumbai today, all in outdoor public areas where the bomber never once had to pass any security screening or metal detector or road block, etc.

Security theater is the correct term for this. Because the TSA is in no way trying to make things safer for US citizens, and nothing they are doing is providing extra safety. Instead they provide merely the appearance of security and they allow lawmakers to go home during the elections and say "look, we're doing something!" If we really wanted to stop terrorism we'd do something to eliminate the causes of terrorism.

The problem is that there are only two times when it's acceptable for somebody to touch my junk, if I get sick and need medical assistance or with my consent. Telling children that there are times when somebody can flash a badge and touch their genitals is not something that is acceptable to any reasonable person.

I personally won't fly because I care about my body and my rights apparently more than you do. These machines are known to be ineffective and all the TSA is doing is moving the vulnerability from a plane with a fixed payload to a security checkpoint with a lot more people.

I'm afraid you are completely and utterly incorrect: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

And RIGHT after that, it explains exactly what "reasonable" means in context: (1) probable cause, (2) supported by oath or affirmation, (3) a description of the things being searched for, and (4) a fucking WARRANT.

The 4th says "shall not". It doesn't say "except if we're too stupid to harden the cockpits" or "except when we've disarmed the populace in direct violation of the 2nd amendment" or "unless we want to."

It fucking well says "shall not." This clearly indicates that not only is this not an enumerated power, it can't be formed out of an "interpretation" of one of the enumerated powers, because, get ready, it's FUCKING FORBIDDEN. s-h-a-l-l n-o-t. How hard is that for you morons to understand? It means NO!

... we can't believe you let yourselves be driven to a point where you have to be strip-searched, molested and interrogated before they let you on a plane - and all that while maintaining an attitude of utter submission to your TSA masters.

Seriously, guys, you're the only ones doing this shit. You need to stop it, you're beginning to look silly.

Yeah unlike the UK where an innocent Brazilian electrician gets hunted down by plain clothes police and shot seven times in the head. And then the police get off scot-free, nobody involved is ever punished, while the police obstruct justice, lie about and cover up their errors and work hard to smear the murdered man's reputation.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes [wikipedia.org]

“No, it’s not an X-ray,” she told Abbott. “It is 10,000 times safer than your cell phone and uses the same type of radio waves as a sonogram.”(emphasis mine)

What. The. Fuck. I was told almost the opposite, but still wrong at BWI--that the mm-wave scanner was sound waves, not EM. How is this getting twisted? Is there some statement that the mm-wave is "as safe as a sonogram" and the agents are mixing and matching at will?

I don't expect the security screeners to be physicists, but they really need to know what the equipment they operate emits. At this point, I barely trust their magnetometer to not blast me with ionising radiation.

“(She) told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that they were not going through that X-ray,” Sabrina Birge, an airport security officer, told police.

Yeah how dare a mother exhibit "quite a bit of attitude" in defending her daughter from unreasonable search and touching. The shame! The horror! It is the TSA agent's privilege and power that is shameful in this situation, and to a far greater degree, the TSA itself along with its needlessly invasive security theater.

Interestingly enough the woman attempted to take a video of the incident:

At one point, Abbott tried unsuccessfully to take a video with her cellphone.

It looks like:

Refuse to go along quietly

Describe the problem loudly enough for other to hear ("saying she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately or have her “crotch grabbed,” a police report states.")

I personally don't fly unless my employer forces me to. My 2 year old daughter will certainly not fly since the porno scanners have been installed. She has flown twice before the porno scanners were installed. My family has chosen to drive to our destinations the last couple of years. The TSA is a joke. Right after 9-11 when President Bush announced the TSA and Patriot Act, I knew we were in for a knee jerk reaction which won't solve anything. President Obama is just accelerating the stupidity.

People get the government that they deserve. I am proud of this mother and I am glad I wasn't there. I would be doing hand-to-hand combat with them trying to arrest a mother for not wanting her kid groped. They would have a REAL threat on their hands. They have to be trying to provoke us. Are they trying to brew up some home grown "terrorists" with this kind of disrespect of our basic human rights? It's this kind of shit that brings things to a head real fast. I know if this pisses me off to read about, it will seriously piss off others. Keep playing those odds and you will end up with a "winner."

On 07/09/2011 at approximately 1340 hrs I was dispatched to the central screening point at the Nashville International Airport for report of a passenger that was refusing screening. Upon my arrival, I made contact with the subject, identified as Andrea Abbott, who was involved in a verbal altercation with TSA screening agents. Abbott was being verbally abusive toward the TSA agents stating her daughter would not be screened. I advised Abbott that she and her daughter would have to be screened or they would be escorted by me out of the secured area of the airport. Abbott then became verbally abusive toward me as well as the TSA agents. Abbott stated she did not want her daughter to be “touched inappropriately,” have her “crotch grabbed,” or be further screened. Eventually Abbott agreed to allow her daughter to be screened by TSA. Abbott retrieved her cell phone and was attempting to film her daughter being screened. I advised Abbott to put her cell phone away. Again, Abbott was verbally abusive [Emphasis Added]. After her daughter was screened TSA advised Abbott would have to be screened as well to continue down the concourse. Abbott stated this was “bullsh!t” and became verbally abusive toward TSA and myself again. I advised Abbott numerous times she was disrupting the screening process and flow of passengers through the area. Abbott refused to calm down. At this time I placed Abbott under arrest for Disorderly Conduct (TCA 39-17-305). Ms. Abbot was loud in her speech and very belligerant therefore she was arrested for disorderly conduct.

The citizen was engaged in perfectly legal behavior, which the cop ordered her to stop. When she declined, he arrested her. This is why "disorderly conduct" is frequently referred to as "contempt of cop" by district attorneys.

Eventually, the worst that does happen is the worst that can happen. So we look at the "worst case scenario" with laws to see if they go too far. Gets back to that "better to let 9 guilty go free than convict 1 innocent". You shouldn't make a law that assures conviction of all 9 guilty at the expense of risking conviction of 1 innocent.

"Disorderly Conduct". "Disturbing the Peace". "Interference with Official Acts", "Failure to Obey a

I'll add one more thing. Except in rare cases of a violent crime, in most US juristictions even COPS that catch your kid shoplifting or throwing rocks through windows do not have the ability to search a minor beyond a basic search for actual weapons until either a parent is present AND consenting, or the minor child is actually CHARGED with a crime in front of a judge.

The RIGHT of minors not to be searched in the rest of the USA is rather absolute, except maybe in a school where they claim to have a parent'

Offences like "resisting arrest", being "belligerent", "abusing officer" and so on are generally total b.s. - one in a thousand arrests for these things would be legit, the other 999 being tools for wannabe fascist bully boys to prevent people from asserting their otherwise legitimate rights.

I think a good law would be that unless the person arrested had actually committed a real crime (one that doesn't involve any of these 'police' crimes) then there should be no power to charge them with offending the sensibilities of the authorities. Dealing with hostile people is your job if you're a member of the police, TSA etc.

If a stranger wanted to touch my daughter's genitals after claiming that a sonogram uses radio waves, I'd get as belligerent as I would with any other pedophile. She'll walk, eventually, and probably get enough of a settlement to pay for the kid's college. If there were any justice in the world, the TSA goon would be in prison for attempted child rape (along with every single person involved in coming up with this plan.

I mean, c'mon. You create thousands of jobs that involve sexually groping children, and you're surprised when you end up with pedophiles filling those jobs because nobody else wants them? If it were a deliberate conspiracy to sanction, with government violence, the sexual assault of children, they couldn't come up with a better plan.

Someone with enough time and energy could probably go through the court records and figure out how many people in a given jurisdiction were arrested for resisting arrest with no other charges. Shows up in the news every now and then, usually when the cops decided they had to tase someone.

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

And?

That still does not make the TSA policy any less clear or enforced. Once you hand your drivers license over and boarding pass, and you pass through the little gate inside the checkpoint, you have passed the point of no return.

According to the law, and TSA policy you cannot refuse to complete the screening process. Note, I said complete the process. You do have the right to say that you will not subject yourself to A, B, or C, but there is no going backwards. You have to make a choice.

Failure to comply and attempts to leave the screening area, even to leave the airport, are offences that can allow you to be arrested. I know this personally. I did choose the pat down and crotch grab vs the 3D porno image machine.

Note, that I wholly disagree with the practice, but the fact they charged her with disorderly conduct is because they did not want to charge her with the other offence.

That is strategic on the part of the TSA. If she had been arrested for failure to comply with the screening or leaving quietly, there could be a court case. The TSA could be forced to hand over data under subpoena. They could lose and precedence would be established. When this case goes to trial she will be surprised that the screening measures will have practically nothing to do with her case, and the judge will more than likely not allow it to be presented as evidence, nor will the judge allow the TSA to be forced to hand over data and anything, and the whole thing might have everything to do with disorderly conduct. Basically, her court case will be about her behavior, and the airport and TSA will be irrelevant.

Same reason the IRS will usually choose to settle instead of going full on in court if they think they even have the smallest chance of losing. It is to deny the citizenry precedence in law to allow us to fight them effectively through the courts.

Don't be fooled because of the way she was charged. What caused the whole situation is that she did not want pornographic (that which can be considered obscene) images of her children and did not want her children touched and groped by another person. She had no choices her according to TSA policy and was backed into a corner. Golly jee willickers....... I can't possibly understand why she blew her top and got arrested for "disorderly conduct". You back anybody into a corner with zero options and that is what you get. Especially, when they feel their children are being harmed.

She wasn't arrested for a refusing a patdown. She was arrested for being belligerent.

You know, if someone (uniformed or not) insisted on touching my daughter I'd be belligerent too, at the minimum. An arrest would probably be necessary as well. You can keep your false sense of security and freedom America, I'm staying the fuck out.

Being belligerent isn't a crime. If it was, then all the people that told me to eat shit, die, fuck off, piss off, etc would have been arrested after they finished hurling those remarks at me, during my stent in law enforcement. Refusing to allow a bunch of government agents to either submit my child to potentially harmful, or touch him or her in an illegal manner, is not illegal; it is the duty of all parents.

Hell, even from TFA:

“(She) told me in a very stern voice with quite a bit of attitude that

I would be surprised if the definition of Child Pornography is centered around artistic purposes. Medical publications likely have unclothed minors, and medical textbooks for GPs and Pediatricians probably do as well.

If anything, since artwork is often provocative and designed to stir the observer, art involving unclothed minors or representations of them is closer to Child Porn than body scanning images, which aren't designed to stir the observer. There's a classic painting in the Getty Museum in Los Ang

Who gets to arrest them for illegal governing? I find the whole TSA a Constitutional violation. Disorderly conduct? I think it's the conduct of a citizen who SHOULD be disrupting such a violation of our freedoms. I think its high time for mass civil disobedience, in fact its a moral responsibility that we do.